Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 2012-12-10None. None. CITY HALL LARGE CONFERENCE ROOM 400 GRAND AVENUE SOIJ'I'H SAN FRANCISCO, CA, 94080 MONDAY, DECEMBER 101, 2012 7:00 P.V,.. 1. Call to Order. Time: 7:00 p.m. 2. Roll Call. Present: Councilmembers Addiego and Garbarino, Mayor Pro Tern Matsumoto and Mayor Gonzalez. Absent: None. 3. Public Comments — comments are limited to items on the Special Meeting Agenda. 4. Agenda Review. 5. Public Hearing: A Resolution No. 97-2012 adopting the Public Safety Impact Fee for new development in the City of South San Francisco. Public Hearing Opened: 7:02 pan. Fire Chief White recommended adoption of resolution implementing a Public Safety Impact Fee for new development in the City of South San Francisco. Consultant Economic & Planning Systerns, Inc. ("EPS") was contracted to prepare a study pertinent to the fee. EPS was present as was Police Captain Brosnan to answer any questions. In August, funding to commission a public safety impact fee study was approved. Staff contracted with EPS to perform the study. .Among other things, the study analyzed over a 20 year period: the City's public safety capital facilities and equipment needs; replacement of existing infori-nation systems; and gear and equipment. In addition, the study looked at proportionate share to determine the nexus 1'()r any fee Council cliosc to adopt. The proposed fee program focused on proportionate use of capital equipment and was Hiline with state law in that the basis fear imposition ofstich fee demonstrated a 25% correlation with capital facilities and equipment costs. Pursuant to state law, the impact fee funds must be reported out annually and if funds remain unspent after a certain period of time, refunds are to be made. Regarding the EPS study, Fire Chiel'White noted diat staff provided EPS with a. list of existing equipment and potential equipment and facilities improvements. EPS identified which of these items would be eligible for payment by the fees. Council would have to approve ficc expenditures. tires. However, as development impact fee revenues only cover portion of the rcplacciiicnt cost, Ilic Fire and Police Departments would need to continue dicir current ell'()rts of sccldtig grant funding and other methods to supplement funding front the City's general fund. Ciiicf'Wliitc closed by recommending that Council adopt dic resolution setting the fee. He acknowledged it would not solve all public safety funding issucs, but would go a long ivay to help broaden tic different sources of revenue that might be used to offset known recurring costs. Public Hearing closed 7:25 p.m. Mayor Pro Tent Matsumoto asked for clarification as to whether the fee would apply to single family homes. She further questioned whether (lie $1,285 low density fee would apply if single family homes were included. Cluel'Whitc replied that the fee applied to new development single family homes, but would not apply to existing residential. He continued that the single I'mnily lionic fee would be $1,285. fie further stated that residences with up to 8 units would be considered low density. Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto supported the fec, but struggled with its application to single family hornes. Site cited the current Proposition 13 disparity with certain residents paying very low property tax and new residents carrying the burden as similarly unfair. Councilman Addlego questioned how the proposed fee was different front a tax. City Attorney Mattas advised this was not a tax because it would fund a service that is not provided free ofcliargc. Councilman Addicgo requested clarification as to how the existing 7.596 had paid the fee. Stall'ad'vised there was a direct connection between the service provided an(] the service paid for. New construction would be imposed a fee of .44 cents per square foot. That was calculated based on the total need for public safety improvements then reduced down to the portion 11,0111 new development. Councilman Addicgo posed a hypothetical scenario with 00 new homes and the current 83 police officers an(] 83 bullet proof vests, He queried why new development would have to pay 25% of the new vest cost since it) the hypothetical, new policeman had not been added to the force as a result of the new development. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 10, 2012 MMTES PAGE 2 Fire Ciilcl'NVIiite advised that evciy, 5 years Police Officers need new vests. nic impact fee would go to pay the proportionate share oftlic new vest, which spreads (lie cost oftlic vest (1111'erciltly. Chief While f1ii-dier noted that taxes are recurring and the fee is a onetime occurrence. Councilman Garbarinc, requested clarification ol'the definition of'high density. City Attorney Mattas replied is it 18 or ii-iorc units per acre. EPS Consulting representatives added that this figure was based upon the Gwencral Plan. Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto questioned whether imposition of this fee; would limit. Council's ability to require the installation of Fire Station with new development, similar to what had been done at Terrabay. Fire Chief Wliflc advised that approval of this f'cc would not limit Council's ability to negotiate other Public Salety improvements in development agreements. City Attorney Mattas advised this fee was intended to eliminate (lie need ]'or negotiation of sonar of (lie things picked up on an ad lioc basis in development agreements and create a more predictable environment for developers. Mayor Pro Tern Matsumoto queried whether any other San Mateoa County cities maintained this fcc. Fire Chiel'White replied that South San Francisco would be the first in San Mateo County. Mayor Pro Tcni applauded the Police and Fire Departments for bringing this recommendation in an effort to fill some of the projected shortfalls over the next 20 years. Councilman Addiego questioned whether the lec as proposed could achieve the necessary budget improvements. City Attorney Mattas advised the fee had an automatic escalator provision which is an annual CPI adjustment applied to the fec. Assistant City Manager Van Duyn advised the escalator provision is consistent across all fees. Councilman Garbarino opined the cast of 101 area would be most significantly affected. Councilman Addiego (jucricd how approval of the lee would impact projects already in progress. City Attorney Mattas advised that if no development agreement is in place, developers ivould pay the fee imposed at the tune ol'building permit issuance. In certain development agreements there is a negotiated cap, fie further noted the fcc would not be retroactive. Mayor Pro Tcin Matsumoto asked for clarification regarding information on page 37 of the staff rcport. Slic requested confirmation that the net increase in service population means the number of people in residential or commercial that will he serviced by Police and Fire. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 10, 2012 MINUTES PAGE Staff confirmed she Was correct. Councilman Addlego inquired as to exemptions, City Attorney Mattas ref'Cri-c €1 him to Section 7 page 9 ofthe resolution, "Inapplicability ofTee". It defined all instances in which a fee would not apply. Councilman Addiego stated he believed it was tinic to look at the Proposition 13 conundrum, so that creative ways to generate funds such as this did not have to be considered. He could sign on to this due to the fact that it was a one time fcc, but. hoped for a better (lay. Councilman Garbarino stated that the clarifications made the fee palatable 1'()r him, fie supported the reconinicii(lation and believed it was the way the City had to go. Mayor Gonzalez commented that Cvcl-1 though there is not touch development west of 101 (here are other cities creating incentives for developers to conic into their cities. I Ic did not believe this was the appropriate time to create an impact fee. He understood it was greatly needed bill could not support it. Councilman Addiego, queried how this would affect certain projects in the pipchile, including Spruce at El Camino Real. Assistant City Manger Van Duyn advised the 1'ec would impact the proposal at Spruce and El Camino Real. Councilman Addiego expressed frustration over the myriad of inconsistencies in flees assessed developers, Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto stated a previous aversion to 1ecs. However, she noted with tinic, she has sccii the value in fees such as traffic mitigation, sewer treatment and water quality, These fees have helped to build the City's infrastructure to accommodate the growing Biotech and other industrics. Councilman Garbarino opined that big developers are not afraid ol'f'ecs like these. He stated they, understand the value it brings. Mayor Gonzalez stated fie was not against the fee but did not believe it was the proper finic to impose it. With more movement West of 101 lie would be ready to support it. Motion— Councilman Garbarino/Second— Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto: to approve a Resolution adopting (lie Public ;Safety Impact Fee for new dcvelopmen( in the City of South San Francisco, AYES: Councilman Garbarino, and Mayor ProTcni Matsumoto. NOES: Councilman Addiegm and Mayor Gonzalez, ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. City Attorney Mattas stated the Motion failed for lack ol'affirniative vote. He questioned whether Council wished to have the iteni brouglit back when and 11'a 5"' Council ember was present, Councilman G"arbarino and Mayor Pro Tcm Matsumoto advised they would like to consider the SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 10, 2012 MINUTES PAGE 4 item when a fifith Counclinieniber was added to the body. City Attorney Mattas stated that timing oh-clicaling would be iniportaiit as the public safety lee f'()r Oyster Point 'Ventures was tied to passage ol'the Ice. Ili the fee were adopted bef'orc December 31, 2012, then a .28 cents per square 16ot fee would apply to the Oyster Point Ventures Development. If* no fee was adopted prior to December 131, 2012 then no public sal'ety impact f"cc would apply to the prqject. Councilman Addiego expressed Frustration (lial this was not made part of'the discussion with respect to how (lie f'ce would impact developments already in progress. He stated that in light of this ijilorniation, rciecting the f'ec wits not an o1)6oii f'()r hiiii. He questioned how the vote could be reconsidered. City Attorney Mattas advised a motion fear reconsideration was necessary, Motion— Councilman Garbarino/Second— Mayor ProTeni Matsumoto: to reconsider previous vote. I hialurnously approved by voice vote. Motion- Councilinaii Garbarlilo/Second— Mayor Pro't'ein Matsumoto: to approve Resolution No. 97-2012. AYES: Councilmen Addiego and Garbarino and Mayor Pro Tein Matsumoto. NOES: Mayor Gonzalez. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. G. Discussion related to options regarding Downtown area quality of life improvement measures. City Attorney Mattas introduced the discussion item which was placed oil tile agenda at Mayor Pro Telli Matsumoto's request. Stalfhad looked into measures which would improve quality of'lif'e III the Downtown area. He reported the options lor Council's consideration and noted that stal , f could conic back with proposals 1'()r actions related to any of'the nicastires Council wished to take. Suggestions included options 1"Or increasing activity, public cameras to deter inappropriate behaviors such as public urination, Stay Away 0rders and a smoking ordinance. City Attorricy Mattas advised this iteration of the smoking ordinance would prohibit smoking in the Downtowii breezeway and bicycle park section and parks citywide. Mayor Pro Tcni Matsumoto stated the intent was to take back Grand Avenue f'or the residents. She advised she had been working with a Downtown business grog and the Chamber of Commerce to conic up witli ideas for improvement. She believe(] Council action would help spur improvements. Councilman Garbarino stated support 1'()r considering all of options disclissed by City Attorney Mattas, Councilman Addiego stated that he was in support of' the se measures but noted that Colilicil should proceed with caution. Mayor Gonzalez believed the items should be brought back before Council 1'()r consideration, SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 10, 2012 MINUTES PAGE 5 7. Discussion pertaining to options and procedures pertaining to the vacancy of the City's elected Treasurer Position and direction to staff. City Attorney Mattas advised that following the passing ol' City ' Treasurer Dick Battaglia, lie had circulated it memo to Council advising of the options for filling the position. He note(] the process was slightly different than filling (lie Council Seat, in that Council had 60 days as opposed to 30 days to take action. He requested direction as to whether Council desired to call a special election or considcr ail appointment, 11 'an appointment were to be colisidcred, lie rcquested direction as to whether Council Wislicd to solicit apPlications or consider appointment of the incumbent Deputy City 71'reaslirer, Frank Risso. Mayor Pro 1'ein Matsunioto recommended appointment of Deputy Cit)"Freasurer Risso to fill Mr. Batiaglia's term until Novenibcr 2013, She observed that he had been doing a 4,Tcat 'ob and was a qualified investincrit counselor and advisor to the Finance Department. Councilman Garbarino agreed that appointing Frank Risso as 'treasurer was preferred. fie noted that as Deputy City Treasurer, Me Risso brought a lot to the table and could ensure consistency in the near Blur(. Mayor Gonzalcz asked D eputy 'Fre as tire r Risso, who was in attendance, whether he would be willing to accept the scat il'appointed. Deptity'J'reasurcr Risso replied yes. Councilman Addicgo advised that 1'reasurcr Battaglia had selected Mr. Risso because lie believed lie would be a strong Deputy 'treasures. I Ic recalled how excited '"I'l-casurer Battaglia was about the strengdis, Mr. Risso won](] bring to the job. As part of"Freasurer Battaglia's legacy, he woul(l like very much to support the Deputy lie chose to be the City'I'reasurcr. City Attorney Mattas advised the Council could hold a Special Meeting prior to its Regular Meeting oil Wednesday night to consider appointment of' Mr. Risso. Council so directed. 8. Adjournment. Being no further business, Mayor Gonzalez adjourned the meeting at 8:56 p.m. Submitted: Kea .t. inel i, City Cle City of South San Francis SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING MfNUTES Approved: Pedro onzale;UM r City of South San Francisco DECEMBER 10, 2012 PAGE 6